1
雅利安Aryan一词源自梵文，意为“高贵者”。西方主流世界历史学于17——19世纪建立雅利安人种优越论的学说。
所谓的“雅利安人”，本来是历史上从没有任何可信记载（所根据的都是现在见不到也说不清的某些梵文资料）而近乎虚构出来的一个亚洲族群——不知从哪里来，也不知后来向何处去。
据欧美史学界的说法，所谓雅利安人的识别标准，唯一就是根据他们都讲着一种“雅利安的共同母语”。这种雅利安共同母语的另一个“科学”的名称，即所谓“原始印欧语”。
但是问题在于，历史上根本就没有任何史料或证据证明人类中曾经存在这种语言。这种所谓“雅利安语言”或者原始印欧语言，是被16——17世纪欧洲和神圣罗马帝国的教会学者通过所谓比较语言学的方法虚拟以及虚构（即根据猜测，臆造或者伪造出来）的。其中最有名的炮制者即荷兰人马库斯·冯·鲍霍恩Marcus Zuerius von Boxhorn（1612—1653）、英国人威廉姆·琼斯（William Jones，1746－1794）和德国人弗朗兹·博普主教(Franz Bopp1791——1867)。有趣的是，作为雅利安语言的发明创造者，这几个人在崇洋的中国学术界似乎没有什么人知道。他们或许是被西方刻意地隐匿，因为这样才能把他们的学说伪装成自古有之的真理。
而后在18—20世纪，这种虚拟的原始印欧语言就被作为一种历史事实，系统地引入人类学、考古学、历史学，从而虚拟出了一个特殊的古代优秀人类种族——雅利安人种或者民族。于是，人类早期文明的一切卓越成果（包括古巴比伦、埃及、小亚细亚、罗马、波斯、印度和黄河文明），就都被归于这个优越人种的创造物。西方人称，这个雅利安人种乃是希腊、罗马人和现代欧美人的共同祖先。以上就是17世纪以来西方系统伪造的世界性伪史形成的基本脉络。［此种伪史的最新代表作之一，就是目前名声甚噪的威廉·麦克尼尔William H. McNeill的《世界史：从史前到21世纪全球文明的互动》一书。］
值得注意的是，西方上述伪史的构造基础，既不是建立于体质人类学、遗传人类学之上，也不是建立于考古学和历史文献学等等这种可信的实证科学的基础上；而完全是建立在所谓的比较语言学和虚拟语言学这种形而上学的基础上。也就是说，所谓雅利安人的存在以及全球性迁移的故事，不是建立在可信史料或者考古实据的基础上，而是建立在“语言”人类学——即所谓语言或者语法相似性的推测上。在这种推测的基础上形成了西方关于世界古代文明史雅利安起源论的宏伟大厦。西方学界制造伪史的方法就是：先建立一系列可疑的假说，然后把假说转变为信史，再用假说作为直接引证的史料。这种方法，西方人运用已经烂熟，自从文艺复兴以来，他们就一直在借助那个来历不明、时代不明、地缘不明、作者不明的“荷马史诗”，作为构造全部希腊史前伪史的基础。这种伪史，当然是完全不可征信的！
2
所谓的“原始印欧语”，是在17——19世纪欧洲对亚、非进行殖民的时代，由欧洲语言学家根据所谓的比较语言学的方法而所倒推、猜想而虚构出来的一种假想的古代语言。最早有系统提出这个假设的是荷兰人马库斯·冯·鲍霍恩Marcus Zuerius von Boxhorn（1612—1653）。
1647年，鲍霍恩提出梵语、波斯语言与若干印欧语言似乎存在语法的相似性，并假定他们出自原始的共同语言起源，这种原始语言他称之为西徐亚人语言。在他的假设中，这些起源相同的语言包括梵语、波斯语、荷兰语，阿尔巴尼亚语，希腊语，拉丁语，波斯语，以及德语和斯拉夫，还有凯尔特和波罗的海地区的语言。因此，他设想印度和欧洲的语言都起源于同一个原始语系统——这就是古印欧语系。不久，这种纯粹出于猜想和虚构出来的原始印欧语，就被西方主流学术界言之凿凿地断论，成为古典时代的拉丁语，希腊语，梵语和各种欧洲现代语言的始祖了。

如何让语言学的一种假说变成世界历史中的信史？

图为关于印欧语系起源的“坟冢假说”Kurgan hypothesis，描述印欧人在公元前约4000年至1000年期间迁移的情况。虚箭头表示的“安纳托利亚迁移”的路线可能经过高加索地区或巴尔干半岛。粉色表示的范围为假设的原住地（Urheimat），包括萨马拉文化及斯莱德涅斯多格文化。红色表示的是操印欧语的族群在公元前约2500年可能已定居的地区，橙色表示的是前1000年左右的情形。
但是非常讽刺的是，由于欧洲人对阿拉伯人和犹太人的歧视，鲍霍恩和17—19世纪的欧洲学者却都并不承认雅利安语言（即古波斯语言、印度语言以及安纳托里亚的语言），与他们紧邻近的阿拉伯语、希伯来语和突厥语言有任何相似、相通性或者互相影响的关系，他们宁可认为这种据说也是亚洲起源的雅利安语言与遥远的北欧语系、日耳曼语系更加相近。

威廉·琼斯（英语：William Jones，1746年9月28日－1794年4月27日），英国语言学和东方学家，生于伦敦。琼斯毕业于哈罗公学和牛津大学。1774年为律师。1783年任印度殖民地孟加拉最高法院法官，后封爵士。他业余专攻梵语。
1787年英国人威廉·琼斯爵士提岀“原始印欧语”这个语言名称。他声称：拉丁语、希腊语与梵语和波斯语之间有相似之处。为论证英国人统治印度的历史合法性，琼斯试图将本来为梵语或者波斯语的小分支“雅利安语言”与日耳曼—盎格鲁·撒克逊语言结合起来。琼斯1787年撰文断言梵语与拉丁语和希腊语有相似之处。

原始印欧语—所谓雅利安语理论的主要炮制者之一：弗朗兹·博普神父（1791—1867）
19世纪初，德国的弗朗兹·博普主教(Franz Bopp1791——1867)，是继鲍霍恩后，系统炮制所谓原始印欧语的一位最著名的学者。博普针对几个主要语言的名词和动词形态进行比较，认为梵文与古代安纳托里亚语言、古希腊语言、拉丁语，波斯语和日耳曼语言有直接的亲缘关系。但是他还没有提出语音构拟的标准。于是19世纪不断涌现了一批批的欧洲学者，他们继续对印欧语的语音演变，系统地、大规模地进行了一系列可疑的重建。19世纪时，学者通常将这系虚拟语言称为“印度-日耳曼语系”，有时候也叫“雅利安语系”。
后来西方学术界普遍采用琼斯的名称，将欧亚大陆这些语言共同的假想祖先称作原始印欧语。关于这个语言的起始地（Urheimat）最早的说法是伊朗或者印度，后来又形成两种説法：一是认为来自黑海和里海北方的草原（即所谓“坟冢起源假说”Kurgan hypothesis），二是认为来自小亚细亚—安那托利亚。这些假说最引人注目的矛盾点就是，雅利安语言—所谓原始欧亚语言本来起源于梵语，现在则被远搬到乌克兰草原地带。支持坟冢起源假说者认为雅利安这种语言出现的时间在公元前约4000年左右；但支持安纳托利亚起源假説的，则将时间更往前推至7000——8000年（即印度-赫梯语）。

［坟冢假说（英语：Kurgan hypothesis）是有关雅利安人起源问题的历史和考古假说之一。该假说认为雅利安人起源于“坟冢文化”，即东欧大草原上的亚姆纳文化（意为“坑墓文化”）及其前身的考古文化。坟冢假说是目前最为广泛接受的有关雅利安人起源的模型，与之相对的一个模型是“安纳托利亚假说”（将印欧语民的原住地定为小亚细亚）。
坟冢假说最早是由玛利亚·金布塔斯在1956年提出。金布塔斯在《史前的东欧》中首先提出该假说时，综合地利用了考古学和语言学来对雅利安——印欧人起源问题进行研究。她的假说将原始雅利安—原始印欧语使用者与东欧大草原的亚姆纳文化及其前身相联系，并将印欧人的原住地定位在东欧大草原，提出晚期原始印欧语的各种方言曾在这一地区被使用。假说并且认为该文化逐渐扩张直至占据整个的东欧大草原，最晚阶段的文化（“坟冢丁”）即为前3000年左右的亚姆纳文化。
坟冢文化的游牧性质使其得以扩张占据整个欧亚大草原地区，这一过程中对马的驯养及后期对（仍处于雏形的）战车的使用起重要作用。最早的有可信驯马证据的是位于今乌克兰的、亚速海北岸的斯莱德涅斯多格文化，它与前5000年的印欧前期文化对应。现已知最早的战车是在克利伏耶湖附近发现的，追溯至公元前约2000年。后来的论述者把中国的商朝战车甚至秦朝人也归类于这一文化的传播中。

接下来向大草原以外地区的扩张造成混合的、被金布塔斯称为“坟冢化”(kurganized)文化传播，如雅利安人的西迁（西部的双耳细颈椭圆尖底陶器文化Globular Amphora culture)，进而发生的则是约前2500年的原始希腊人(proto-Greeks)向巴尔干半岛以及游牧的印度-伊朗文化向东迁徙的过程。
但是，詹姆斯·马洛里认为印欧人向西的迁徙是无法被严格证实的。语言学家孔甫烈(Kortlandt)后来引用这一结果，认为考古学上的证据除了在与语言学综合分析尚有用途外，在用于研究印欧人的迁徙史方面是没有多少分量。］
总而言之，根据这种雅利安语言的虚拟和重建，欧洲历史学家不仅断言古印度、古波斯人那些黑发、黑眼睛、褐色皮肤的高加索人以及安纳托里亚的地中海人，与远在北欧的金发、多毛的白色人是亲戚，而且古代的希腊罗马人与他们所鄙视、仇视，看做讲鸟语的“蛮族日耳曼民族”——这两个彼此曾经浴血千年、世代为仇敌的民族现在也被说成原来是一脉相承的直系亲戚了。
这样一来，通过上述语言学的虚构，本身缺乏文明历史和传统的日耳曼蛮族（欧美白人的祖先），就找到了与西亚、埃及、波斯、印度、中国等繁荣的古代文明的血缘历史关系，欧亚大陆的全部古代文明都是雅利安—日耳曼种族所创造，雅利安—日耳曼民族理所当然是世界的主人。日耳曼民族对于其他种族的优越性和对于未来全人类建立统治的合法性，也就找到了合理的历史支点。
因此，西方人认为19世纪欧洲语言学最重大的成就即是对原始印欧语的虚假构拟。此后，这种假想语言理论迅速被欧洲人引入、移植到考古学和历史学中，假设和猜想变成了确信无疑的历史。印欧语的假设，当今已经成为西方主流历史学对世界历史、古代文明起源和西方文明起源的最根本的支柱理论。

3
所谓的雅利安人，起源于梵语，据说是古代伊朗语族民族中的一支，进入了印度成为高贵的种姓。后来雅利安人被西方学界推演扩变为伊朗语族民族的一种宽泛的代称。再后来，这种梵语—伊朗语即被称作印欧语，而被认为是泛欧亚早期文明创造者的语言和现代欧洲人的母语。但是必须指出，这一套说法在历史中找不到任何可信的史料或者实证的支持。西方的伪史宣称：原始雅利安人来自北欧，于公元前4000——8000年前定居在东欧草原，然后分为三支——东支进入中国新疆和西北，就是吐火罗人，大月氏人，南支进入印度，就是印度的婆罗门种姓，是进入了两次，一次是上古，一次是贵霜王朝。西支进入了两河流域，就是后来建立大名鼎鼎的波斯帝国的那些伊朗语部落的直系祖先。雅利安人是创造了欧亚大陆主要的早期文明的人，包括了赫梯人，建立波斯帝国的波斯人，埃兰人，米底人；印度的婆罗门种姓白人，中国西部的吐火罗人，大月氏人，中亚的粟特人，以及古代中亚的花剌子模人（契丹王朝），阿兰人（也就是《汉书》中大名鼎鼎的的奄蔡人或者奥赛梯人）。因此，通过虚构古代印欧语——雅利安语言，雅利安种族不仅被认为是现时欧洲主要语系白种人系统的共同祖先，而且也是那些古老的亚洲文明创作者——小亚细亚人、波斯人、印度人、古代希腊人和罗马人的原始语言，甚至也是中国早期王朝商朝人的原始语言。也就是说，几乎全部的人类早期文明——特别是青铜文明和铁器文明，都被认为是印欧语系的雅利安民族创造的——也就是欧洲日耳曼民族的祖先所创造的。虽然原始印欧语的存在，从来就没有得到任何古代史料或者其他资料的证实。但是这丝毫没有阻碍欧洲学术界在19世纪勇敢地将所谓的原始印欧语的基本的发音和词汇，通过所谓比较语言学的比照法系统地重构——也就是伪造出来。西方共济会基金资助一批探险家（如伯希和等）在18——20世纪对中国西部、中亚和西亚进行了一系列考古和探险，那其实并非由于他们对我们的华夏文明有什么兴趣，而也是试图在此寻找雅利安人的存在和迁徙证据。
4
从17世纪至18世纪末，印欧语系的概念逐渐塑造成型。据说，现代印欧语的很多词都是从某些雅利安的“原始词”经过有规律的语音变化发展而来（比如格林定律）。尽管从来没有找到任何可信的实际语言证据，但是西方语言学界和历史学界仍然毫无困难地复原建构了所谓的原始印欧语言模型。西方学界声称世界上大约有439种语言和方言可以归入印欧语系统，根据2009年西方的民族语言估计，其中大约一半（ 221种）被归类为所谓的印度—雅利安支系。
因此，这种莫须有的雅利安语言包括几乎全部欧洲语言及部分亚洲语言，特别包括伊朗高原和印度次大陆以及古代的安纳托利亚语言。但就是不包括汉（藏？）语、突厥语、阿拉伯语、希伯来语（有趣的是犹太语言近年已被升格，正在被嫁接于雅利安语言），因为这后者们是欧洲人（雅利安人？）眼中的下贱民族的语言。
19世纪中叶，由于法国人约瑟夫·戈宾诺伯爵（Comte de Gobineau）及其门徒张伯伦（Houston Stewart Chamberlain）的鼓吹，西方出现“雅利安主义”即“雅利安人种优越论”，声称“雅利安人种”成员就是讲印欧语言的人，他们是创造了人类一切文明的人，优越于闪米特人、黄种人以及黑种人。雅利安主义的信徒们认为，唯独北欧和日耳曼诸民族是最纯粹的“雅利安种”成员。这种理论后来就成为20世纪的纳粹帝国清洗人种政策的理论基石。

【附录】西方构拟的原始印欧语分支：
阿尔巴尼亚语
安纳托利亚语族（消亡）
亚美尼亚语
波罗的-斯拉夫语族（波罗的和斯拉夫语族）
凯尔特语族
日耳曼语族
希腊语
印度-伊朗语族（伊朗和印度-雅利安语支）
意大利语族（包括罗曼语族）
吐火罗语（消亡）
【威廉姆·琼斯】
Sir William Jones (28 September 1746 – 27 April 1794) was an Anglo-Welsh philologist and scholar of ancient India, particularly known for his proposition of the existence of a relationship among Indo-European languages. He, along with Henry Thomas Colebrooke and Nathaniel Halhed, founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and started a journal called 'Asiatick Researches'.
William Jones was born in London at Beaufort Buildings, Westminster; his father (also named William Jones) was a mathematician from Anglesey in Wales, noted for devising the use of the symbol pi. The young William Jones was a linguistic prodigy, learning Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew and the basics of Chinese writing at an early age.
Sir William Jones sometimes also went by the nom de plume Youns Uksfardi (???? ????????). This pen name can be seen on the inner front cover of his Persian Grammar published in 1771 (and in subsequent editions as well). The second half of the pen name, Uksfardi, Persian rendition of "from Oxford", can be directly attributed to the deep attachment William Jones had for the University of Oxford. The first name Youns is a rendition of Jones.
Of all his discoveries, Jones is known today for making and propagating the observation that classical Greek and Latin seemed to have been derived from Sanskrit. In his Third Anniversary Discourse to the Asiatic Society (1786) he suggested that classical Greek and Latin had a common root and that the two may be further related, in turn, to Gothic and the Celtic languages, as well as to Persian.
Although his name is closely associated with this observation he was not the first to make it. In a memoir sent to the French Academy of Sciences in 1767 Gaston-Laurent Coeurdoux, a French Jesuit who spent all his life in India, demonstrated the existing analogy between Sanskrit, Latin, Greek and even German and Russian.
Jones' third annual discourse before the Asiatic Society on the history and culture of the Hindus (delivered on 2 February 1786 and published in 1788) with the famed "philologer" passage is often cited as the beginning of comparative linguistics and Indo-European studies.
The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.This common source came to be known as Proto-Indo-European.
Jones was the first to propose a racial division of India involving an Aryan invasion but at that time there was insufficient evidence to support it. It was an idea later taken up by British administrators such as Herbert Hope Risley but remains disputed today

【弗朗兹·博普】
Franz Bopp (September 14, 1791, Mainz – October 23, 1867, Berlin ) was a German linguist known for extensive comparative work on Indo-European languages .He was born at Mainz , but owing to the political disarray of the time, his parents moved to Aschaffenburg in Bavaria . There, he received a liberal education at the Lyceum, and Karl J. Windischmann drew his attention to the languages and literature of the East (Windischmann, along with Georg Friedrich Creuzer , Johann Joseph von G?rres , and the brothers Schlegel, expressed great enthusiasm for Indian wisdom and philosophy). Moreover, Friedrich Schlegel 's book, ?ber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier ( On the Speech and Wisdom of the Indians , Heidelberg, 1808), which had just begun to exert a powerful influence on the minds of German philosophers and historians, could not fail to stimulate also Bopp's interest in the sacred language of the Hindus .
In 1812, he went to Paris at the expense of the Bavarian government, with a view to devoting himself vigorously to the study of Sanskrit . There he enjoyed the society of such eminent men as Antoine-Léonard de Chézy , Silvestre de Sacy , Louis Mathieu Langlès , and, above all, of Alexander Hamilton (1762–1824) [not the US statesman], who had acquired, when in India , an acquaintance with Sanskrit, and had brought out, along with Langlès, a descriptive catalogue of the Sanskrit manuscripts of the Imperial library. In the library, Bopp had access not only to the rich collection of Sanskrit manuscripts (mostly brought from India by Jean Fran?ois Pons in the early 18th century) but also to the Sanskrit books which had up to that time been issued from the Calcutta and Serampore presses.The first paper from his four years' study in Paris appeared in Frankfurt am Main in 1816, under the title of ?ber das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache ( On the Conjugation System of Sanskrit in comparison with that of Greek, Latin, Persian and Germanic ) (Windischmann contributed a preface). In this first book Bopp entered at once the path on which he would focus the philological researches of his whole subsequent life. He did not need to prove the common parentage of Sanskrit with Persian , Greek , Latin and German , for previous scholars had long established that; but he aimed to trace the common origin of those languages' grammatical forms, of their inflections from composition – a task which no predecessor had attempted. By a historical analysis of those forms, as applied to the verb, he furnished the first trustworthy materials for a history of the languages compared.
【约瑟夫·戈宾诺伯爵】
Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau (14 July 1816 – 13 October 1882) was a French aristocrat, novelist and man of letters who became famous for developing the theory of the Aryan master race in his book An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races[1] (1853–1855). De Gobineau is credited as being the father of modern racial demography, and his works are today considered very early examples of scientific racism.
Gobineau's father was a government official and staunch royalist, and his mother, Anne-Louise Magdeleine de Gercy, was the daughter of a royal tax official. He was not, however, a nobleman, having added the 'count' to his name himself.
In the later years of the July Monarchy, Gobineau made his living writing serialized fiction (romans-feuilletons) and contributing to reactionary periodicals. He struck up a friendship and had voluminous correspondence with Alexis de Tocqueville,who brought him into the foreign ministry while he was foreign minister during the Second Republic.
Gobineau was a successful diplomat for the Second French Empire. Initially he was posted to Persia, before working in Brazil and other countries.
He came to believe that race created culture, arguing that distinctions between the three races - "black", "white", and "yellow" - were natural barriers, and that "race-mixing" breaks those barriers and leads to chaos. He classified Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa as racially mixed.
Gobineau also questioned the belief that the black and yellow races belong to the same human family as the white race and share a common ancestor. Trained neither as a theologian nor a naturalist and writing before the popular spread of evolutionary theory, Gobineau took the Bible to be a true telling of human history and accepted in An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races the day's prevailing Christian doctrine that all human beings shared the common ancestors Adam and Eve (monogenism as opposed to polygenism). Nonetheless, he suggested that but for the Church's teaching there was nothing else to suggest that the coloured races were foreborn, like the white race, from Adam, since "... nothing proves that at the first redaction of the Adamite genealogies the colored races were considered as forming part of the species".
Gobineau believed the white race was superior to the other races in the creation of civilized culture and maintaining ordered government. However, he also thought that the development of civilization in other periods was different from in his own and speculated that other races might have superior qualities in those civilization periods than in his own. Nonetheless, he believed European civilization represented the best of what remained of ancient civilizations and held the most superior attributes capable for continued survival. His primary thesis in regards to this theory was that European civilizational flowering from Greece to Rome and Germanic to contemporary sprang from, and corresponded to, the ancient Indo-European culture, also known as "Aryan" which included for example the Celts, Slavs and the Germans.
However, Gobineau later came to use and reserve the term Aryan only for the "German race" and described the Aryans as 'la race germanique'. By doing so he presented a racist theory in which Aryans—that is Germans—were all that was positive Gobineau originally wrote that, given the past trajectory of civilization in Europe, white race miscegenation was inevitable and would result in growing chaos. He attributed much of the economic turmoil in France to pollution of races. Later on in his life, with the spread of British and American civilization and the growth of Germany, he altered his opinion to believe that the white race could be saved.
Paradoxically, although Gobineau saw hope in the expansion of European power, he did not support the creation of commercial empires with their attendant multicultural milieu, concluding that the development of empires was ultimately destructive to the "superior races" that created them, since they led to the mixing of distinct races. Instead, he saw the later period of the 19th century imperialism as a degenerative process in European civilization. To support his conclusion, he continually referred to past empires in Europe and their attendant movement of non-white peoples into European homelands in explaining the ethnography of the nations of Europe.
According to his theories, the mixed populations of Spain, most of France and Italy, most of Southern Germany, most of Switzerland and Austria, and parts of Britain derived from the historical development of the Roman, Greek, and Ottoman Empires which had opened up Europe to the non-Aryan peoples of Africa and the Mediterranean cultures. Also according to him, southern and western Iran, southern Spain and Italy consisted of a degenerative race arising from miscegenation, and the whole of north India consisted of a yellow race.
Hitler and Nazism borrowed much of Gobineau's ideology, though Gobineau himself was not antisemitic, and may even be characterised as philosemitic.Gobineau wrote positively about the Jews, including the long eulogy to them in his Essai sur l'inégalité des races, describing them as "a free, strong, and intelligent people" who succeeded despite the natural disadvantages of the Land of Israel. When the Nazis adopted Gobineau's theories, they were forced to edit his work extensively to make it conform to their views, much as they did in the case of Nietzsche.
Though in no way espousing his beliefs, Bahá'ís know Gobineau as the person who obtained the only complete manuscript of the early history of the Bábí religious movement of Persia, written by Hajji Mirz? J?n of Kashan, who was put to death by the Persian authorities in c.1852. The manuscript now is in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. He is also known to students of Babism for having written the first and most influential account of the movement, displaying a fairly accurate knowledge of its history in Religions et philosophies dans l'Asie centrale. An addendum to that work is a bad translation of the Bab's Bayan al-'Arabi, the first Babi text to be translated into a European language.
Gobineau wrote novels in addition to his works on race, notably Les Pléiades (1874). His study La Renaissance (1877) also was admired in his day. Both of these works strongly expressed his reactionary aristocratic politics, and his hatred of democratic mass culture.

红线部分：布哈拉犹太人属于mizrahi犹太人（中东犹太人）并且履行塞法迪犹太教派的礼仪。

红线部分：他们（中东犹太人）包括了巴比伦犹太人和高加索犹太人，分布在伊拉克、叙利亚、巴林、科威特、达吉斯坦、阿塞拜疆、伊朗、乌兹别克斯坦、高加索山、库尔德斯坦、阿富汗、印度和巴基斯坦。
截止2005年，50%以上的以色列犹太人都是中东犹太人血系。

骂了就别删么。